Skip to main content

tv   American Politics  CSPAN  September 12, 2010 9:30pm-11:00pm EDT

9:30 pm
to everybody, on the basis of need. if however they may contribution and escape the obligations to do so, do not think we do need to have measures to make that possibly it that exactly what we're working on. we will be coming forward with announcements soon. >> what with the deputy prime minister say to my constituents, >> mr. speaker, i am very and
9:31 pm
news that he says the random which he claims has no mandate was in the manifesto which he campaigned on a at the last election. i know that labour is enjoying denying any responsibility for the past u-turn after you turn. -- u-turn. do you know 100,000 members of the public have made suggestions about how we could try to bring some sense to our public finances without hitting the vulnerable, the front-on public -- front-line public services? have we heard a single suggestion from anyone on the benches opposite? not a single suggestion. until the labour party opposite catches up with reality, they will not be taken seriously. >> eleanor lang. >> thank you, mr. speaker. how can the deputy prime minister justify to hard- working taxpayers facing economic difficulties in their own families and businesses that he wants to spend 100 million pounds of their tax payer money on a referendum on the voting system?
9:32 pm
referendum of the voter system? >> i'm amused that my right honorable friend gets to cheer. [shouting] >> gets a cheer from the members opposite. that, of course, is a reason as my right honorable friend knows why we think of why we think there's a compelling, a compelling case to save up to 30 million pounds in the cause of holding the elections in may and the referendum on a separate occasion by saving their money by combining them on the same day an idea which i suspect she is not that keen on but which i hope at the time she will come to support. >> the deputy prime minister is famous for his humility. [laughter] >> following the report of the select committee and is more his report of the financial times, is he now prepared to apologize for the mistake he made and join
9:33 pm
the leader, the liberal leader and called for some public financing for the project? >> mr. speaker, as he knows the reasons regrettably why the 80 million pounds those announced by the previous government 11 working days before general elections, a nice photo opportunity for the priest prime minister, the reason why that has not been able to proceed from this year's budget is that it is not affordable under this year's budget, given the deficit we inherited so much greater than we thought. in other words, it was a promise made where money was not a bill. it was a check written with the previous government knew it would bounce. but we have made very clear that we will continue to work with them to see how we can support them in the future once the budget situation becomes clear after the comprehensive spending round. >> mr. speaker, chinese oppose a threat to farmers both because of the crops and because of the
9:34 pm
wireframes are cut into small pieces by harvesting equipment. so that wire is incorporate into animal feed such as a and side was killed farm animals. oneself with the government consider to reduce the risks in this area? >> mr. speaker, everybody who lives and works in rural areas knows that this is an issue which is causing a great deal of distress for farmers and their livestock. women look at ways we can do with the issue and reduce the risks posed by these while not wishing to ban them completely. we have been in contact with the manufacturers and had demanded that day in future should be 100% biodegradable and have full safety instructions within. >> mr. speaker, with the deputy prime minister join in paying tribute to my constituency, there is thousands of pounds of
9:35 pm
shelter box for other areas devastated by events. and will he give a commitment -- [inaudible] >> we will of course look at anything which will both continue to encourage people to be as generous as they have been in responding to this truly horrific catastrophe. i was in pakistan just last week and saw for myself the scale of the. it is generally difficult to comprehend, an area, the size of the whole of the united kingdom has been submerged under water. 20 million people have been displaced to my fear is the worst is still to come as waterborne diseases start taking hold. and that is why i certainly welcome his interest in it, and also we will welcome him and all sides of the house we can work together to continue old as a government and as a people to show support to all of the many
9:36 pm
distressed communities in packs -- pakistan deserve at the time. >> and i ask the deputy prime minister about the parliamentary system bill, if this bill is significantly amended or defeated, will the liberal democrat leader coalition, or can he give a guaranteed -- [shouting] >> i'm not sure, please, please are disappointed when i say that the persistence and resilience of this coalition is not dependent on any one single piece of legislation. [shouting] >> you will note again, i'm not sure if you'll be pleased or displeased by this that this bill is only one part of a much, much wider program of reform, including giving people the power of recall, being able to sack the mps, to clean of party funding, to produce proposals finally to reform.
9:37 pm
so i'm afraid political >> each week the house of commons is in session, we air prime minister questions live on c-span to wednesdays at 7:00 a.m. eastern and c-span -- and on sunday night. you can find a video archive of past prime ministers questions online. it is at host: [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> on "q&a," nicholas von hoffman. tomorrow on washington of all --
9:38 pm
on "washington journal," david kahl, andgs, colin michelle mello. she will discuss the impact of the new health care law on patients. that is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. next, the new hampshire senate republican primary debate. you'll hear from four candidates running to replace the retiring senator judd gregg. the state's primary is a timber 14. republican primary winner will face paul hodes. this debate was hosted by the new hampshire institute of politics at st. anselm college and was sponsored by wmur tv. >> this is a commitment 2010 special. wmur news 9 presents the granite
9:39 pm
state debate. tonight, the republican candidates for senate. >> appearing at tonight's debate was kelly ayotte, a prosecutor and former state attorney general, also jim bender, a career businessman, william binnie, a businessman, adennis lemayor, and ovide lamontagne, former chair of the state board of education. now, the granite state debate. [applause] >> good evening, everyone. welcome to the third night of our debates here at the new hampshire institute of politics at st. anselm college. will be tackling the major
9:40 pm
issues in the senate race. the candidates include jim bender, ovide lamontagne, jim bender, and kelly ayotte. we will ask you to welcome the candidates. [applause] our panelists for the evening are here with us.
9:41 pm
let's get to it. josh, first question. mr. binnie, first response. >> we're here to talk about the issues. the tone of this race has become an issue. a lot of people say it has been one of the nastiest primary races in recent memory in new hampshire. where do you draw the line between an honest critique -- of their critique of your opponents background and nasty campaigning? >> it is a pleasure to be here tonight. it has been my pleasure to run for the united states senate. the people of new hampshire have gotten to know me. my dad introduced me over nine months ago. folks understand that i care about the job and the economy. when i became the frontrunner in the august, we were attacked by all kinds of private organizations. i thought that was not fair. i did not like it.
9:42 pm
not for amnesty. i am a liberal. ask my kids. what i am about is talking and dealing with the economic crisis that new hampshire is experiencing. we need jobs in our state. that is what i want to talk about. they do not care about these ads. they want to hear our policies and our background and how we can make a difference in their lives. i want to focus on that. >> thank you. >> i concur with that. we should not be personal in our attacks. we should stick to the issues. that is what this is all about -- making america a better place and bringing her better if -- bring her forward to a better country. we know we need jobs. we know we have things that are not ripe. they asked me to grade president
9:43 pm
obama's performance so far -- i said x. it is obscene what he is doing to us. he is apologizing for us out there in the world where he should not be. he is taking us down the road to ruin. that is what we should focus on, not on personal attacks. >> thank you. >> when i got into this race, it was because i believed and i still believe that i can change america for the better and to new hampshire for the better. i did not get into this race with the idea of bashing in the candidate or tearing anybody else down. i have not. i believe i have conducted myself honorably and ethically and i will continue to do so. i believe that we face a number of different problems, all centering on jobs. we have too many unemployed people -- over 50,000 people. this creates a number of other problems. almost everybody i talk to is
9:44 pm
worried about their jobs. many people are worried about job security. many people feel they are underemployed. they worry that their incomes are not keeping up with expenses. they worry about how they will retire someday. it all tires -- ties back to our economy. i believe i can improve our jobs picture. >> want to know about the tone of the campaign and where it is appropriate to criticize other candidates? this is the most important election in our lifetime. we are a nation in the fiscal crisis, moral crisis. there is no time to spend on negative campaigning rather than focusing on the issues. i have stayed above the fray. i think it is important to distinguish among the candidates where we stand on issues. it is very important that we stay focused on the nation's
9:45 pm
problems. one reason people are discouraged and turned off by politics is the negative campaigning that takes place that is reflected in washington itself. we have a culture of corruption in washington. i want to fix it. i pledge to focus on issues and will continue to campaign positively and on the issues that matter to people in this state. >> i have been the subject of a few negative attacks. that is not what matters. what matters is the issues. the issues that matter to new hampshire batters -- voters include the out of control spending in washington. if we do not address that, we will bankrupt the greatest country in the world. our children will not have the opportunities we have had. a need to cut spending, get our hands off the backs of business, government is making it difficult to put people to work. cut regulations.
9:46 pm
i'm part of a small-business family. the more they spend in washington, the more they want to tax businesses. i want to cut spending in the senate, lower taxes, and get people back to work. >> we move now to the topic of immigration. the next question is from john. >> good evening. all of you profess to be immigration hawks. you would detain and deport illegal immigrants simply for being in the country illegally. why are you the toughest on this stage? just to draw a distinction, what would you say are your opponent's weaknesses on the issue? >> thank you. it is because i believe that immigration is a very big part of our national security problem. the issue that we have is the migration of peoples from the south, whether they're mexican
9:47 pm
not, bringing across drugs and contraband. they infiltrate our society. what i would do to stop immigration -- i do not call immigration -- i call it trespassing. they do not belong here. they're coming over illegally. i would bring our troops from from overseas -- home from overseas and give them what they need to protect us, which may be a bullet in a gun, not sitting behind a desk. i would say the people who hire these people coming across the border are committing felonies. that way that would not enable people to come across the border if their freedom was unable -- if their freedom was in jeopardy. my time is up. >> thank you. >> thank you for that question. we should secure our borders. we're long overdue. we need to crack down on employers who provide employment for illegal immigrants and we need to repatriate those who
9:48 pm
have come into our country. i believe that i have received a good housekeeping seal of approval the differentiate me from the other candidates on this issue. jim gilchrist was here from california last week, the leader of the minuteman project, and he endorsed our candidacy, which i am very proud of. we have a number of problems with illegal aliens which affect all aspects of our economy, our job market, and make us much less safe by not securing our borders. a nation which cannot secure its borders cannot protect its sovereignty. this is something that is long overdue. the number one responsibility of the american government is to protect americans. stealing our borders would be a good start. thank you. -- sealing our borders would be a good start. >> national security includes border security. that is the first job of the federal government and it has not been doing that job. i would propose that we secure
9:49 pm
the border however we can and we do it quickly. there is no reason not -- we cannot. in absence of the federal government, the states ought to be able to do it. support arizona and arizona law appeared to have from the beginning -- i support arizona and arizona law. i have from the beginning. one of the other candidates did not support the arizona law -- bill binnie. we need tough immigration policy to make sure that employees who knowingly employed illegal immigrants are punished. we need to the poor people who are not here legally and we need to have a solid -- -- to deport people who are not here legally. we need to have a solid immigration process. >> miss ayotte. >> we need leadership from
9:50 pm
washington. i fully support the arizona law. it highlights the lack of leadership in washington. for the attorney general of the united states to sue arizona rather than for the president to step up and secure our borders through a fence, through technology -- other countries do it. we should be doing it. should enforce the law. -- we should enforce the law whether it is against the players -- against employers or against police. english should be the language of our country. it needs to be done for national security and because it is a burden on our education and health care systems. i am proud to have the endorsement of the police chiefs of the state. they know that will crack down on illegal immigration in washington and get things done. >> thank you. >> immigration and washington, d.c., are the heart of what's wrong with our system. we all agree that immigration is
9:51 pm
a problem. the people in washington do not get the job done. in my life in the private sector, i have been allowed to do that. that is the difference between me and a politician or a lawyer. i get things done. we need a sound and secure walled border between our southern border and the united states. the people of arizona are rightly -- absolutely within their rights to be concerned. this is a washington problem. immigration is their responsibility. the obama administration needs to crack down on illegal immigrants coming into this country. no amnesty. ask people who want to live in our country to speak english. crack down on employers or landlords t. we should be getting the job down. >> next question is about the budget. >> you are vying to replace a man who has become what -- one
9:52 pm
of washington's 02 guys on these kinds of issues. he was the point-man on t.a.r.p. did senator judd gregg make mistakes? >> we have to acknowledge that our federal government has a spending problem. they're just out of control in their spending. are spending at the federal level will increase 35% from where it was three years ago this year. we have to take the credit card from congress and cut it up. it is unreasonable that they are driving us into this kind of debt. the 111th congress has put together the two biggest deficits in the history of our country. this poses all kinds of issues. it is stagnating in our economy and costing us jobs by the millions. this is one of our biggest problems. we have to create jobs.
9:53 pm
my campaign slogan is jim for jobs. we have to rein in government spending are regulate with a lighter hand, and limit the climate of uncertainty which prevent businesses from investing. >> thank you. i do have a follow-up. would your approach be any different from that of senator gregg? we all know he was the republican point-man on tea party -- on t.a.r.p.? >> i would not have favored t.a.r.p. the budget continues to climb and grow out of control. it is having a detrimental effect of all levels of society. we have to handle that. it is hard to isolate one senator when the compressor -- when the entire congress has done a poor job.
9:54 pm
they all have the ability to guide us back to the saner path. >> how would your actions as u.s. senator be different from senator gregg? i disagreed with his approach to that bill. we were on the fast track. how we get to where we had to move so precipitously raises a lot of questions. in that legislation, we gave the president a blank check which is why he is looking at some of the money that has not been spent or has been returned to of it -- to do other things that are not related to that bill's purpose. i commend senator gregg for being a clarion voice. it means we need conservatives who are principled in their approach, who understand the role of government is limited, and the constitution is a limiting document, not a living document. i am a constitutional conservative. i look forward to succeeding judd gregg and representing the
9:55 pm
people of new hampshire. >> thank you. miss ayotte. >> i have great respect for senator gregg. there are many issues we agree on, but i disagreed with the bailout. it has to stop. i will not support any bailouts. i disagree with senator gregg on earmarks. i think that process has to end. i was the first candidate to sign the citizens against government waste no pork pledge. i will not seek your marks -- seek earmarks. we need a balanced budget. i will support a balanced budget amendment and would use common sense where our bills cannot exceed our revenue. that is the type of common-sense we need in washington. >> thank you.
9:56 pm
>> senator gregg has been a commendable center for new hampshire. however, we have a $1 trillion deficit that is unsustainable. today's deficits are tomorrows new taxes. businesses, bankers, markets, consumers, individuals all around our country and the world are concerned -- deeply concerned about the solvency of the united states and whether we can pay our bills. that is at the heart of my candidacy. we need to cut spending. send people to washington who have lived in the real world. someone who has wandered about the checks coming in the next day because payroll depends on it. we have enough lawyers in washington. we need people from different walks of life. i think represent that. somebody who can make a difference. i am an outsider to this process. i owe the people in washington nothing. i have not taken washington money and i will not.
9:57 pm
that is what the campaign is about -- making a difference in changing the direction of the united states. >> i also would not have voted for the bill. the money is still spent -- is ill spent. i would cancel out and let the bush tax cuts expire appeared in the short term, they did a good job. the anticipation -- the bush tax cuts expired. in the short term, they did a good job. i would cut back on the subsidies to a lot of the economy that we have such as agriculture, pharmaceuticals, things like that, and get rid of 's. tse's -- gse i would privatize fannie mae and freddie mac.
9:58 pm
but the market determine the pricing. get the money back into the treasury. >> thank you. you're going to move to our first question from viewers. will each have one minute to respond to this question from maureen who is asking, what is your position on the federal government's recently passed health care legislation? part to do is what piece of new legislation would you support to -- part two is what piece of new legislation would you support to amend that legislation? >> among the many pledges i am making, i will work to repeal obama care. until we can do that, i would not fund it. it is the wrong direction for the country. i'm a business lawyer. people say we have too many lawyers in washington. we have too many of the wrong kind of lawyers in washington.
9:59 pm
we need conservatives to understand how legislation works. i practice in health care. i would decentralize the medicare system. the reason health care is such a problem is because the existing federal laws, rules, and regulations are choking competition and increasing costs. they are hurting our ability to deliver the best-quality health care services to our people. i would go in a very different direction. healthcare is a locally developed and locally-grown service and it should continue to be that way, not from a washington command and control approach. >> i would vote to repeal obama care. it adds to our deficit. it is not sustainable. we've seen premium increases will be a result of obamacare. i am part of a small-business family. we have a landscaping and snow plow and business. we cannot afford this kind of premium increase. we need to open up our insurance
10:00 pm
markets. i will support legislation to allow people to purchase insurance across state lines. you'll have more than three choices in the state of new hampshire. we will allow businesses to pull together and and we can form this to reduce health-care costs. these are the things that we can enact and do not involve creating a new entitlement that we cannot afford under obama care. >> it will not work and will only breeds mediocrity. the government is not good at providing this. in fact, they will get between us and our doctors, one of the most private and important decisions of our lives made by people in washington. that is wrong. not only that, we will not get what we really need. we need affordability. i know our health-care system is not perfect.
10:01 pm
the challenge is how to deliver health care to all of our citizens. we can do it better. we can focus on so many things on a bipartisan basis and drive down the cost of health care and make it better for all americans, and as a united states senator, i would reform it. thank you. >> i would vote to repeal it also, but i think the probability it of a repeal is a statistical improbability. it has to go to the house first. the president would veto it. the senate-passed revs 67 votes, and for that to happen i think this election cycle is a miracle, -- the senate has to
10:02 pm
have 67 votes. this would be piecemealing it out of existence. the other thing we would do is let the states do what they are doing, filing suit, and let the supreme court decide on amendments 8, 9, and 10 of the constitution to get it out of the way. yesterday, i was in a debate or forum with mr. lamontagne, and they were talking about keeping the laws. a person has the right to sue anytime, anywhere that a one for any purpose, and that is the attorney that we will be sending to washington, and he thinks it is ok for us to sue. where is personal responsibility in this nation? >> thank you. mr. bender?
10:03 pm
>> this is a disaster, and i will do the impossible to defund it, and hopefully, what we have a new president, to repeal it. to lower the cost of health care for all americans, to extend coverage to all americans, but this bill does neither of those two things. when it really does is extend government control over all of our lives from cradle to grave korean anything this long cannot possibly make sense. this bill is loaded with new taxes, new regulations, in new earmarks, and they gave them too little names, like "the cornhuskers kickback." $300 million going to louisiana for the louisiana kick back. if we are really sending patriot and public servants to washington, d.c., and they felt a bill was worth passage, would they need a right to vote for it, and if it was needed, would they need a bribe to vote for
10:04 pm
it? my time is up. >> for the next question, the candidates will have up to 30 seconds to answer. ms. ayotte has the first. >> let's be clear on where everyone stands on this, starting with you, ms. ayotte. under what circumstances should abortion be legal? >> thank you for the question. i am pro-life. i think abortion should be very limited. i would support an exception for life of the mother, rape, or incest, but we should do everything possible. >> i am a true conservative. i do not believe the government has any role in these private matters. i believe this is a personal decision. i am pro-choice. i believe the government should stay out of our health care come out of our lives, and give the decisions back to the person who
10:05 pm
is living in. i believe in personal responsibility. i am certainly not pro-abortion by any means. i am pro-choice, and i believe everyone needs to come to their own condition -- decision based on their own conditions and medical situation. >> i believe my rights and right here and do not go any further. it is up to someone else to make that decision with their family or by themselves. it is not in the constitution for a senator or congressman to interfere in a person's life in any way possible. that is why roe vs. wade has not been talked about in the congress or the senate, because it is not their purview. it started in the states and went to the supreme court, and the only way that is going to be overturned is going back to the supreme court, so as far as the senator and/or the congressman, it cannot happen. >> thank you. mr. bender? >> no decent person in america,
10:06 pm
myself included, is comfortable with the number of abortions performed in america, and we have to do all the began to limit the number. this should not be thought of as a form of contraception. -- we have to do all that we can to limit the number. this is a decision between a woman and her doctor, and i do not think we want the government involved in this. it is a 10th amendment issue, as well. it is not a matter for the federal government. >> mr. lamontagne. >> certain unalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. we are endowed by our creator at the moment of creation, and that is the moment of conception.
10:07 pm
i am the only candidate for the united states senate who was 100% pro-life, and i am the only candidate that supports a human rights amendment, because this is at the moment of conception, and that is what we are based on as a country. >> thank you. back to you, john, and, mr. binnie, it is yours. >> how credible define these answers from your opponents, in terms of some of the positions they have taken, some of the cases that they have been involved in from a legal standpoint? you are all stating your positions as being strongly pro- choice and pro-life. at issue is credibility, and a matter what side of the issue you are on. would you like to address that in any way as to why you are more credible in your position
10:08 pm
and more believable than, say, mr. lamontagne? >> my friends, colleagues, and opponents of peter, i think we all went to deal with this in a straightforward way, and we are doing our best to explain what we believe and think. you know, it is not easy to run for public office, but i have had the courage to state that i am pro-choice. that i do believe, and i can say that as a conservative, because i think the government should be a smaller factor in our lives and not included in our lives. these are individual decisions, so i take each one of my colleagues up -- up here at their word. >> i, too, take them at their word. pro-choice vs of the pro-life. mr. lamontagne would espouse a constitutional amendment. constitution does not allow us
10:09 pm
to interfere in personal lives. i think a constitutional amendment would be out. mr. lamontagne, "the declaration of independence" is not "the constitution." and for ms. ayotte to say that she is pro-life with exceptions, that means she is pro-choice. >> thank you. mr. bender? >> as i said, a decent person is happy with the number of abortions going on in the united states, and i and in favor a parental notification for minors. which and i am in favor. however, do we really want our government to have control, very great control over your life, and, particularly, your body? i do not think so, and i also hope that we do not turn this into an election issue, because
10:10 pm
the real problems we have are the economy, jobs, and shrinking the size of the government. >> thank you. mr. lamontagne? >> thank you. in this election cycle, more than any i've seen, i think, i have been around the state for the last year, and people want to know you are who you say you are and that you are going to do what you say you are going to do. there is a lack of trust and confidence in elected officials and in candidates, so i do think it is fair to ask the question, "what have people don?" i am the father of a special needs child. i walk the walk and talk the talk. i think is fair. >> thank you. mr. lamontagne, your time is up. ms. ayotte? >> i am pro-life.
10:11 pm
at the time my job was on the line, the governor degree -- disagree with my position. planned parenthood called for my resignation. i have a resolution on this issue. i fought for parents' rights. it was not easy to argue before the u.s. supreme court when my job was on the line, but i have courage and conviction and will take that courage and conviction to the senate to stand for life but also to cut the spending and to get our country on track. >> thank you. john, staying with you for the next question, and you have the next question. >> ok, our next question is on foreign policy. operating -- operating in pakistan or yemen, or just for the sake of argument, in china, which you support military action without the host country's consent? >> no. >> why? >> we cannot -- without the country's consent?
10:12 pm
>> without the host country's consent, which you support military action without the host country's consent? if we had intelligence showing that al qaeda was functionally operating, whether the pakistan or yemen? >> i would not, because that is interesting on the sovereignty of the nation, and needed -- we may precipitate a greater war that what we're trying to avert, so i would not go into another country without their consent. >> thank you. >> the number one priority of our federal government, john, is to keep america safe, and we have to do that by whatever means necessary. however, we would want to use every diplomatic action with pakistan or whichever country it may be, that we believe there is a threat, and try to address it with the cooperation of the host country. i think it is a first step to unilaterally invading, because you believe al qaeda would be there, would be an overreaction.
10:13 pm
that has not been said. of situations. we have nuclear proliferation in iran as well as north korea. we have got problems with managing opec. we have got problems with neighbors around israel, india, pakistan, china, taiwan's. all of these require the cooperation of other countries, and we should avoid acting unilaterally wherever we can and do it with the cooperation of those host countries. >> mr. lamontage. >> after giving to notice and the opportunity to cure by the host country, that host country continues to harbor terrorist organizations, continues to support them, and continues to support their ends, then we have
10:14 pm
to do whatever we need to do, even if that means acting unilaterally. this is going to be part of our response now. we are not dealing any longer with nations that are close to us. these operas and organizations, we need to be ready to respond. now, we should work, clearly, with other nations, but american institute woodies to do to protect its vital interests. >> we need to protect the united states of america. the fundamental purpose of government is national security, and if we have to take a step if al qaeda is in another country, we should take whatever means we need. if we have to do it unilaterally, we have to do to protect america. by has been served in the iraq war and fought for as there. i can tell you with our troops serving in afghanistan, we need to know that they are behind -- they need to know that we are behind them.
10:15 pm
we need to make sure that americans are protected. we will do that when we are cooperating with our allies and working with other countries, but if we have to act unilaterally, we must have the fortitude to do so to protect america. >> thank you. mr. binnie. >> the first duty is to protect the citizens of the united states of america. this is a real fact of life. sadly, and may even affect our children. it is a real fat. we should be determined and honest with our citizens about the threats and dangers. if al qaeda is in a host country, we need to work diligently with those opposed countries to make sure that they are not a threat to america. we have to be careful to keep all of the options on the table, and as the united states senator, i would do that. the firm and determined and make sure that we do the best job that we can, the absolute best
10:16 pm
job we can, with giving the right tools to our military to make sure that this threat of terrorism is contained. >> thank you, mr. binnie. back to you for our next question for mr. bender. >> the 9/11 attacks, and there is a church in florida that had been planning a koran burning event. this also comes on the controversies surrounding in moscow on the blocks away from ground zero. this is still evolving as we speak. but if both are guaranteed under the constitution, mr. bender, do you find either case to be inappropriate? >> this suggestion of burning the koran is inoffensive, -- is offensive, and we are a country of religious freedom and religious tolerance, and the fact that it is making news means that it is such an unusual thing for somebody to think
10:17 pm
about burning the koran, but as you pointed out, 3000 of our fellow citizens were slaughtered, and not any one of them did anything provocative to the radical islamic terrorists. you have to understand this is not an isolated incidents. they have been trying to kill americans for decades. we have a war on terror that is not going to go away because we convinced some minister in florida not to burn a koran. these radical islamic terrorists hate us because they hate what we stand for. they hate that we stand for liberty, but we must stand up for the rights of man and the betterment of mankind, and we do not accommodate these terrorists. every village has somebody like this who is going to be something stupid, but even the village idiot has constitutional rights. >> thank you, mr. bender. mr. lamontagne? >> this was about bringing the
10:18 pm
koran and building a mosque near ground zero. this is an act of street -- of free speech. we have to respect free-speech. we are the sovereign -- individual people are the sovereign of this country, and at the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, then the price has to be paid by us, as well, as the men and women in the military, and the pastor decided not to burn the koran due to public pressure, not due to government intervention, and that is important, that we recognize our responsibility individually to speak out. that was not the right thing to do. it was inflammatory. what we have to look at is the hallowed grounds from the attacks of night -- of 9/11. that should be hallowed ground. >> ms. ayotte?
10:19 pm
>> i do not think anyone should forget where we were at 9/11 korea i was on my honeymoon. we should not build a mosque there, and if the individual who is pushing to build that moscow really is about reconciliation, that he will not build the mosque there because the victims of 9/11 feel very strongly that we should not build a mosque there given the pain and suffering that they have gone through. when it comes to bring the koran, my husband served in the iraq war, and when general petraeus' said that this action even though about firmly under our constitution may harm our troops, then we should not do it. even as we are allowed to do it, it is not the right thing to do to harm anyone of our troops in theater, and that is what we need to do, make sure that our troops no the we are there, supporting them, and we will not do something if it is sad for them. >> places where americans are
10:20 pm
special. the putting of a mosque there may be legally collect, constitutionally authorized and approved, but morally, it is not right. it is wrong, and i object to it, in the strongest possible way. it is not right to do it, due to those who lost people during that tragic event. it may be legally correct to do it, but it is inflammatory. we are a tolerant people. we have mosques around our country, and we have many, many citizens. that is part of who we are as americans. it speaks to what we should do together, which is get along and deal with each other in a respectful manner. the burning of the koran does not do it. in addition, putting in harm's way our servicemen and women to do it makes no sense. i am glad to year the minister has decided not to do that. common-sense rules out.
10:21 pm
>> i think this is a state issue and a personal issue. there is free speech. i think if the mom wanted to reconcile the emotions of the people -- if the man -- if the imam way to reconcile -- i will leave it at that. i do not want to get into a personal thing here, so i am going to leave it at that, the bat is a personal issue and a state issue and not give any more credit to the person down in florida and give him any more than he already has. thank you. >> thank you. working with our time constraints, we will now move to a series of shorter questions with shorter answers. each candidate will have 30 seconds to respond. the first has to do with the supreme court. >> would you make it clear how
10:22 pm
you would vote on the two supreme court nominees? isn't such a bad thing when it comes to supreme court nominees? specifically on the issue is when you apply, and when you are sitting there considering the nomination? >> this differentiates myself and ms. ayotte. i would not have, and the reason i would not have is that my litmus test is the ability to the rule of law. an application of the rule of law to the facts and not legislating from the bench, and the nominee needs to demonstrate that they have that fidelity to the law. there isa tissue that covers as a litmus test, but you should be able to get answers that are being asked. ms. ayo -- >> ms. ayotte?
10:23 pm
>> we need to not have a double standard. what i did not agree with justice sotomayor, -- while i did not, she had a record, but the other did not have a record, and for her being the dean and objecting to rotc on campus -- i am going to look at the litmus test, and we need to make sure that we get a president elected in 2012 to nominate a conservative justices. >> mr. binnie? >> a belief in individual rights and privacy, who believe that smaller government is better than a broader growing government. that is why -- i think that justice sotomayor believes this is a living document, and they can interpret it as they wish.
10:24 pm
it was not fundamental to the united states constitution. if we let supreme court justices, i think we will all be better off. >> i would not have voted for justice sotomayor or kagan. i would not put anyone in a lifetime position that did not prove themselves with either caseload or president, and i would not have a litmus test because the constitution does not prove they have a litmus test, other than the advice and consent of congress. now, the president can nominate anyone that he or she wants when the case may be. it is up for the senate to decide. the president can nominate anyone of these. and my time is up, and i have to
10:25 pm
leave it at that. thank you. >> at a minimum, are justices should understand the law and more importantly have a track record of a poll -- upholding the law. there was a mistake in a supreme court nominee. that is a mistake for life. and so, we have got to make sure the bay of a track record that we can measure. there are many candidates that do, and if i were on the supreme court right now, i would of only voted to have some of them. i think the others do not have a track record going in. >> shorter answers for just a moment. we are going to go back to josh, and this is concerning gay rights. we go to ms. ayotte? >> should same-sex couples have
10:26 pm
the same adoption rights as everyone else? >> thank you for the question, joshed. i certainly support traditional marriage, and i think traditional families would be the option. >> oh that is -- so that iis a no? >> yes. >> i believe they should engage in civil unions and the adopted child. i think any child that is embraced in love and a positive way, who is educated and has supportive adults in their lives, that child will be better off. >> i concur with mr. binnie. it is a state issue, a personal issue, not a federal issue. for a congressperson to even interfere on legislating something in that high of a position, so i would be in favor of adoption for gay couples. >> thank you. >> one of the roles i hope to
10:27 pm
have as a senator is to limit the strength and scope of the federal government, and that includes not allowing the federal government to get into areas in which they have no charter. and then this spells out whatever is not given to the federal government in the constitution belongs to either states or individuals. adoption rights for gay couples is not a matter for the united states senate, and i would oppose the senate taking it up. >> i am the only candidate who supports a federal marriage amendment. we have seen what can happen in this country. one judge distorted their people of california on this issue. adoption is a state issue, and i think the state should pesticide. i would be opposed to gay adoption of children. >> thank you. and so now, in lieu of closing statements, we're going to ask a closing question, which we do invite the candidates to use.
10:28 pm
canada is, you will have one minute and 15 seconds for your answer, and the closing question actually comes in from a viewer, who once in a tonight how does your previous history of entwinement make you want the best candidates for the u.s. senate, and you will have the first response, mr. lamontage. but i think the moderator and the union leader for endorsing my campaign for the united states senate. i am probably -- i know i am the most experienced person here. i have worked as a business lawyer for over 20 years but i have worked in the private sector as a chairman of a credit union. i have dealt with health care and the issues we're facing. critical issues. i have the expertise to be ready on day one to serve you. our nation is in crisis.
10:29 pm
we need to nominate and elect the person who is ready on day one to advance the conservative agenda which washington is really crying out for, when the police and constitutional principles, of limited government, of a balanced budget, fiscal responsibility, and national security, to include border security. i believe washington is not listening to us. washington does not hear the people. i will go to washington and make the statement on behalf of the people. the people do not work for you, washington. you work for the people, and i will be the voice of new hampshire people, as i have been as an advocate in my private life, in my personal life -- professional life, and as a son of new hampshire. >> i wanted to separate myself by saying when you looked down to washington, who is creating the problem?
10:30 pm
to millionaires and attorneys come to mind? we look at the house, 238 million years in the house. there are 175 attorneys in the house, and the ratio is the same in the senate. on this floor, we have to be millionaires, two attorneys, and me. that is the difference. i am one of you in the audience. i am one of the people that sits at your television, at your home, that goes to work with you. i have a job. if i lose my job, i've been is everything. this is very important, and i want to get this in before my time runs out what -- if i lose my job, i lose everything. people missing from world war ii to today, we have two people in this status. president clinton signed into law the pow does not exist.
10:31 pm
they are now classified as status unknown. would you stand up with me here for these pow's? stand up out there in the audience and on the tv? >> we have reminded our audience not to applaud right now. we will have to move on. >> thank you. thank you. >> you know, i am the proud son of immigrants. my dad was a janitor. my mother worked nights. my teacher asked me a five is point to change tires for a living because he thought i was good enough to change your boxes. i came out of a public high school. i worked at night through college as a mechanic, graduated, and with $1,000 started my business. i build a company that grew into a half the $1 billion company, and more importantly, had 3000 employees. i know how to build a business,
10:32 pm
create jobs, and initiate economic activity, because that is what we need right now. we need jobs. we need people to go to washington i understand capital markets and banking, taxes, manufacturing -- who understand capital markets and banking. china right now has 10% growth, and we have 10% unemployment. in my lifetime, i have seen millions of jobs go overseas to china. that is wrong. but 12 of the last manufacturing plants built in portsmouth, i built. i have been engage in business my whole life. common sense says if you have got a broken car, said a mechanic, and right now, we have a broken economy, and a thing common sense says send a businessman. i did forward to every republican and independent voting on september 14. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. binnie. ms. ayotte?
10:33 pm
>> over the years, u.s. see me as your attorney-general. i took principled stands even when the legislature and government disagree with me and said so publicly. i did not back down, and i will not back down as your united states senator. the matters that i handled, whether is prosecuting the murder case when a police officer was murdered here in manchester or arguing a case for the united states supreme court, i worked hard, and i did my best for the people of the state of new hampshire, and that is why i am running for the united states senate, so that we can go down to washington. i will stop the uncontrolled spending that is going to devastate our children and their grandchildren. finally, you should vote for me because i will be -- he does not want me to be a republican nominee, and i do not blame him. >> thank you, ms. ayotte.
10:34 pm
mr. bender? >> my slogan is jim for jobs. we have a stagnant economy. we have over 50,000 people here in new hampshire looking for work, but we have many more than that the are concerned about their jobs. we have to get the economy going again, and i have a plan to do it. we need to regulate with a lighter hand, because we are regulating others, and this is costing us jobs by the millions. we have to have less uncertainty in our government, because when businesses cannot predict what their tax rates will be, when their cost of capital will be, their labor costs, their health- care costs, they are going to and ifack and not highere, you elect me, i guarantee what you will get is competence, good judgment, high integrity, and
10:35 pm
the courage to get things done, and what i will focus on every day is keeping americans safe, shrinking our debt, border security, it. getting taxes back under control, helping to stimulate our economy to create jobs and to stop this express train towards socialism. i appreciate your vote on september 14. my name is jim bender, and my slogan is "jim for jobs." >> we want to thank you for participating. our final debate is tomorrow night at 7:00. we have a full recap. you can head to the website. back here on channel 9, we will be back with all of the highlights. until then, have a good night. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]
10:36 pm
>> both the political report and cq politics rate in this race in the general election as a tossup. congress returns from its summer recess this week. the senate gavels in to take up the nomination of u.s. circuit judge for the sixth circuit. a vote is set for 5:30 eastern. then, they will turn to small business lending bill that has been stalled since midsummer. an amendment vote scheduled for 11:00 a.m. tuesday proposes to repeal a tax provision in the new health-care a lot. follow the senate live on c- span2. when the house returns tuesday from its summer break, it will consider a resolution to honor the 9/11 anniversary and other suspension bills, with a vote scheduled for 6:00 eastern. then on wednesday, they will take up a couple of bills that
10:37 pm
insures congress buys domestically produced goods when possible and that the department of homeland security do the same. also, an energy efficiency program for rural programs -- areas. they return at 2:00 p.m. live on the eastern -- live on c-span tuesday. >> we cannot afford all of the illegal immigration. >> it has hurt us. it has heard arizonas economy seriously. >> with the midterm elections about 50 days away, follow campaign 2000 online at the c- span video library, with debates from key races around the country. it is easy to follow the candidates and issues any time, all free on your computer. from today's "washington journal," a discussion of the latest under employment rates, which include people whose hours have been cut or who have given up their job search. this is a 20-minute portion. nd the jobs outlook.
10:38 pm
we're joined by heather, a senior economist. good morning. thanks for being was. guest:ood morning. host: let me begin by telling our audience we're dividing our phone lines between those of you who are either unemployed or underemployed. we want to hear from you specifically during the next 40 minutes or so. some headlines on this sunday morning. the detroit free presswill i ever be able to retire in millions of americans confronting uncertain futures. and u.s. poverty on track to post a record gain in 2009. guest: certainly. not only is poverty likely to post a record gain but incomes perhaps may even see record drops in their declines. we saw that between 2007 and 2008. but 2009 was the worst year both for poverty and for income growth. so it's not going to be good
10:39 pm
numbers when we see them next week. host: why aren't companies hiring, large and small? guest: because the labor market is still mired in the great recession. we saw some strong job growth happening in the late spring, march and april of this year. but since then, we've seen job growth taper off. a lot of it is tied u with the fact that when you have a recession that starts with the financial crisis, they tend to be deeper and more protracted. we've had a hard time kind of pulling out of this recession. we've had a hard time encouraging companies to invest and to make those kinds of investments that would lead to job creation. so all of that combined has led to a lack luster unemployment situation. and we've seen that for quite someime now. >> host: the official unemployment rate is 9.6%. in nevada and michigan it's in the low to mid double digits. but in reality people say it should be 10, 11, 12% across the country.
10:40 pm
guest: the official unemployment rate just measures whether or not during the week of the month the survey responding said they were at work last week. but if they weren't, were they actively seeking a job? and available to work? and so what that doesn't take into account is that you've got millions of folks who are working part me but would prefer to be working part time -- or folks who are maybe a banker who is now working as a retail clerk, under employed relative to the skills that they have. host: this is the sentiment of our interviewed this morning for a piece, i'm in a major retrenchment. i'm going to lose my home in another three months or so if something doesn't come through. guest: certainly. thnumbers are grim out there for worng americans. there's no way to sugar coat it. you've seen unemployment lingering for quite some time. and, unfortunately, you've seen a lot of folks out of work and seekg a job f record lengths of time.
10:41 pm
we've never seen so many people who have been out of work for so long searching for a job since the end of world war ii. host: the piece in the national journal, back to basics. looking at a number of individuals who are out looking for a job, those under employed. the belief that average americans must manage their finances more responsibly is a poufrl cord. you saw the pole? guest: i had taking a look look at that. it's fascinating. they talk a lot about the financial stuff but they also talk a lot about what it is that american people want the federal government to do to get the economy back on track. and, interestingly, some of the things they want the government to do include making significant investments in infrastructure and thether kinds of thing that is would both help get our economy back on track but also get people back to work. host: again, we want to hear your stories. heather is our guest. ra mona from st. louis, missouri. you call yourself
10:42 pm
underemployed? caller: no. i'm unemployed. i've been unemployed since january of 2008. host: and what did you do before you were laid off? guest: i worked in the scrap metal business and my background is in community and economic development. host: how are you surviving day? guest: barely -- caller: barely. my husband took early retirement. so we are liing off of $775 a month. host: and what's the job market like for you personally and in st. louis in general? caller: things are very, very tight in st. louis as it is across the country. for me personally, i'm 58 years old and although i am a professional, it's just not a lot out here. 12 resumes sent out and not even a response. i've totally exhausted my employment. i'm a 99er. so i'm twoers.
10:43 pm
so what i would like to know is for what does it look like for individuals like myself who are now long-term unemployed but not only long-term unemployed but also not oldnough to retire and have multiple skills but there's just nothing out? in order for me to stay connected to my industry, i volunteer. i just work in my community volunteering. and then i think we should also take into and factor into the discussion the disparities in the workforce. for instance, in s louis only 17% of african americans are employed in the workforce. so there are many issues that are contributing to the high number of -- the high level of unemployment that i'm just not
10:44 pm
hearing discussed in the debates. host: thank you. guest: that's a hearing tale that you're telling. and we know from the numbers that that's going on in families all across america. one of the things that you said that you were doing was volunteering in your community. one of the policies that we've talked a lot about that i think could really help would be to expand our national service programs. you know, folks on both in the sort of the boomer group but also young people who have been hit hard by this unemployment and firms that have not been willing to bring them backnto the labor market. one thing we could do is expand our national service programs enormously and take advantage of the enormous talent of older workers who have so much to give and so much to teach and use their talents that way, while also training the next generation. that could be something that we could do. but the other thing that it made me think about is that for so many families out there, it's, you've been in your
10:45 pm
community for a long time. unemployment is high where you live. it's hd to sort out whether famslies should be considering moving from one community to another. that's a policy we haven't started to address but maybe we should be thinking about. although it's tough because i don't want to sugst it would be easy or not socially dislocating to have people sort of pulled from their community where they hav their church and schools and where their kids and grand kids live near bi. but it is something we should be thinking about. host: one of our viewers saying companies are not hiring older workers. younger workers will work for less and longer and have less health care costs. greg is joining us. he is underemployed from pennsylvania. caller: thank you for taking my call. that's unemployed. host: go ahead caller: i became disabled in 2004, and since then watched this economy start to collapse.
10:46 pm
and i also had a small business on the side, so i had an entrepreneurial avenue that i was able to develop. and then right now, being disabled and with no prospects out there, and my small business which is media development has just fallen flat because there's just no employment for anybody right now. their advertising bummingts are slashed and it's real difficult to get anything. so i'm in my late 50s. so i'm facing a whole host of barriers that i don't know if i'll ever get back into the workforce again. and the only thing that's keeping me afloat is the fact that i get disability and own my own home. and i'm just barely hanging on like everyone else. but i see most of the people that i know inheir late 50s
10:47 pm
are really worried about their jobs, if they're employed. and those that are unemployed are just seriously in trouble right now. there's no hope for their retirement. and we're back to survival. i mean, if you can make any type of income right now, you're betterff than most people. but like the previous caller, i don't know what to do. i can't move. i mean, you mentioned maybe going where the jobs are. i'm lucky owning my own home. that's what's keeping me alive. host: and you're getting how much per month? in unemployment benefits? guest: i'm a 99er so i exhausted mine a while ago because my employer, previous employer could no longer accome date me. so trying to find a job that where you need accommodation right now is difficult. thanks for taking my call. i'll listen to for your
10:48 pm
comments offline. host: thank you, greg. guest: well, these are really tough stories. one of the thing that greg mentioned is that he had been a small business owner. so to go for that, but i do want to com back to the disability and aging issues. there's a piece of legislation that's passed the house that's been held up in the senate that would provide new lending fund for small businesses and tax breaks for small businesses that could help. we know that small businesses continue to struggle with access to credit because of the fallout from the financial crisis. so that could at least move us in the right direction. it probably wouldn't be, it uldn't solve the whole problem but certainly it is an important step in the right direction. it would be great the see the senate take that up in the not too distant future. the other issue -- both callers have talked about bng older, and facing these really tough economic times. and we know from the data that older workers have been hit the hardest. they have higher unemployment
10:49 pm
than they've had at any point in the post world war ii period. and as we've seen 401 k values fall, record unemployment, we're also many folks are having this conversation about whether or not we should be increasing the retirement age or cutting social security benefits, which seems to be exactly the wrong direction for policy. we should be doing what we could to make sure that these older workers who may not be able to find jobs again like the ones they had in the 2000s have some sort of graceful thransition into retirement that acknowledges that the nancial crisis wasn't their fault but this was because of the challenges that our economy has faced and rethink the situation the social security discussion is going. host: if you're underemployed or unemployed, join our discussion. the numbers are on the bottom of your screen.
10:50 pm
steve is joining us from colorado. you describe yourself as underemployed. why so? caller: because i had my own busines building customized homes and it didn't slow dn. it just quit. so i had to get a job that went from $30 an hour down to $9 an hour. the current job that i'm doing now. my opinionn this whole thing is the government has gotten way, way into the -- in the way of people doing things that they do. i'll give you a real quick example. let's say my neighbors gotome chickens. and the chicken lays some eggs. my neighbor can't sell that egg to me because of the government being in the way. the government is doing just
10:51 pm
exactly what they want to do. the they want to make everybody dependent on the government instead of getting out of our way and letting us create the jobs themselves. i mean, they've gotten way intrusive. if you walk around, you tell me anything that the government doesn't have a say so in your life. we don't have a say so in our lives. the government has gotten completely in our way and it is destroying this country and i've got one other real quick thing. you were talking about social security. ok, everybody seems like they're getting demonized because they want to get rid of -- they want to privatize social security. well, if people really look at it, if they privatize social security, the government can't spend your money. they've gone in there and they have stolen every last dime of the social security money.
10:52 pm
people have to realize that the government has just put that into the general fund. if you look at what the government owes us, if the government would have never gotten into our social security, we would have more than enough money to take care of everybody under social security. so i suggest that we privatize social security and get the government out of our business. host: i'll stop you there. you can respond to that. and i want to share but again what is in the detroit free press on this sunday morning. the first of a two-part series. he talks about social security and retirement in general. so many of these people even mover more reliant on social security. guest: certainly. let me take these in order here. i really do appreciate your comments and one of the things that you noted was that you
10:53 pm
built customized homes. and as the housing market crashed, you lost your job. and one of the thing that is we know about what happened during the 2000s is that we allowed a housing bubble to develop. an economist, there was a small cadre of them that kept saying time and time again if we allow this to develop it will crash and it will cause the crisis that we're seeing now here. and the government instead of doing what they needed to do to smooth that out or to make sure that people weren't having access to these subprime loans where companies were encourang them to borrow more than they could afford because of a lack of regulation of the morning market, that is indeed what caused the problem that we're in here today. so i think that we need to be very carul when we think about what the role of government is. there's a lot of things, when you buy a home or refinance, you sign these piles of papers that it's hard for folks to understand that. and moving forward on the consumer product safety commission in gting a new chair there and focusing on how
10:54 pm
we can make sure that this doesn't happen again i think is an important role for government regulation. so let's keep that in mind. because if we hadn't have had the collapse of the bubble then we wouldn't be here today having this very sad conversation about high unemployment. on the second issue, i mean, you know, it has been just a tragy what we've seen to people's 401(k)s, but also, steve, as you mentioned, the collapse of pensions for some workers, people who worked their whole life and who assume that's going to be there. but, because of a bankruptcy or something late in the day, those benefits are cut even though they were, it was a contract that that worker had with their firm. you know, that is the danger in some way of too much privatization. you know, the 401(k)s are great. you do get to have a choice about where you put your money. unfortunately, what we've been watching lately is watching it fall. and that really puts millions of american families at risk. the nice thing about social security is that it allows us
10:55 pm
to take that risk and spread it across everyone and give everyone a guaranteed minimum so folks don't end up in poverty when thecan ill afford to at the end of their life when they may not be able to work or need a little time to retire and spend time with grandkids. host: heather is our guest. sasha has this comment. look at your 401(k) on september 2008. what happened to your social security, what happened to your union pension. pete ser joining us from new york city. how long have you been out of rk? caller: ten years. i was disabled. but afe comment and a suggestion. host: certainly. caller: i'm a research scientists, cancer buy ologist. and since ie lost my affiliation to medical research institutions, i no longer have
10:56 pm
access to the professional literature. now, it turns out that the professional literature is blished by scientists and institutions whose work is primarily supportd by the united states government. which means our tax money. what happens is that when a person has a paper that they want to get published, they go to a journal and the journal makes them turn over their copyright. and then, the journalakes the copyright and sells -- and sells their journal eitr line or in a paper version. to people who can afford it. now, the subscription to one journal runs certainly in most cases in excess of $100 a year. for a person to do serious research, they need access to anywhere between 50, 10, 200
10:57 pm
journals. so it's not something that an individual can do. host: i'm going to cut you off becauset's a little bit off topic in terms of the unemployment situation. do you want to exclose the circle on this? caller: i'd like to suggest that the united states claim imminent do dome yain. we should make these, this information which is produced through our tax dollars, available to all americans on line because it should be free on line. host: thank you, peter. quick comment? guest: well, i think that's an interesting idea. i was happy to have him mention the infrastructure proposals. i think that's something we need to think about putting more money to rebuild our infrastructure. host: this survey which was published this last week in the latest edition of the national journal, the question of 1200 randly selected individuals. and when asked the question which is closest to your view
10:58 pm
of the proper role of government in the economy, 39% saying that th governments not the solution to our economic problems, 33% saying the government should play an active role in the econo, 28% saying the government mus play an active role in regulating the marketplace. and 3% no opinion. guest: well, it was a very interesting format. surveys in all how the questions are written. and i think it's interesting that sort of the two bottom groups there do see some important role for government in the economy. what the poll shows as youee time and time throughout it is that folks see an important role, that they see a role for government to lay the foundation for economic growth. i mean, that's why talking about infrastructure at this moment in time is so important. that only the government can fix our roads and fix the railways and fix the airport tarmacs and all that. so allowing our infrastructure to allow businesses, large and
10:59 pm
small, to transport goods and services and to get our economy humming again. and you see that through there. what you also see is a tension, because a lot of folks are concerned about too much government interveion. but there does seem to be a consistency that folks want at least that basic inv >> tomorrow, on washington journal, david hocking's. also, colin kahl, and later,


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on